SARAN SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATAUDI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for injunction which was decreed by the trial Court against the Municipal Committee and a private individual was reversed and the suit was dismissed. In the appeal filed by the private defendant, the Municipal Committee which was the 1st defendant had also preferred an appeal but it appears that there was a delay and the Court declined to condone the delay. However, in the appeal filed by the private individual, the Court held that the plaintiff had not proved his title and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. The contention, inter alia, is that when the dispute between the parties was whether the suit property belonged to the plaintiff or to the Municipal Committee, which was shown as 1st defendant and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Municipal Committee would debar also a private individual from pleading that the property belonged to the Municipal Committee. The private individual's appeal itself was barred by res judicata and for the same reason, the Court could not have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, which had become final against the Municipal Committee. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that plaintiff's ownership of the property has been entered in the survey plan and the aks shajra and being public documents, the entries obtained high probative value in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would contend that it was not merely an issue of plaintiff's claim to title but in view of the fact that the suit came to be filed at the time when the Municipal Committee was issuing a notice directing the demolition of a construction made at the property, the defendant-Municipal Committee was bound to prove its own title to justify the notice of demolition.

(3.) Before the trial Court, apart from the survey plan and the aks shajra, the plaintiff relied on an unregistered sale deed for Rs. 96/- said to have been made in respect of the suit property by one Matadin and the contention was that the property was conveyed lawfully in favour of the plaintiff and it had been properly established at the trial. The defendant relied on a sanction plan obtained by the plaintiff from the Municipal Committee, which showed the suit property as a piece of land to go to and fro the gali (gali ane jane ke liye). In yet another document relating to permission for alteration of building, the suit property had been shown as chowk and this was also according to the Municipal Committee an admission of the plaintiff that it was not his own property, for it should have been shown as such in his plan if it were his own. When a notice was issued for removal of a construction, the plaintiff had sought for lease of the property from the Municipal Committee which according to the Municipal Committee was a further proof of admission of the title of the Municipal Committee.